Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1909. THE BUDGET DEBATE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 120, 17 November 1909, Page 6

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1909. THE BUDGET DEBATE.

The determination of the Government caucus yesterday to expedite the business of the session fortunately did not take the interest out of the Financial Debate by a conspiracy of silence. Two Ministers took a part in the de*bate, following respectively, according to custom, the Leader of the Opposition and his first lieutenant ; and several Government supporters were induced to declare their faith on the land question by the interesting amendment which Mr. T. E. Taylor sprang upon the House. It certainly cannot be said that the edict has gone forth from the Cabinet or the caucus that the faithful are to "sit tight" in order to allow the eloquence of the Opposition to evaporate and the debate to collapse. Mr. Massey, who opened the debate, delivered a speech which contained a number of good points, but suffered by the attempt to give it the same encyclopaedic range as the Budget itself. With regard to the new taxation proposed, Mr. Massey gave good reason for believing thaf, the Minister for Finance had considerably under-estimated the sum which it was likely to yield, and unless the Minister can givo the conclusive reply which was not forthcoming yesterday from either of his colleagues who spoke, Mr. Massey's plan for an easing off of the taxation is a good one. His attack on the character of the additional taxation that is proposed does not alter our opinion that it is in the main both sound and likely to prove acceptable to the public. The objection which Mr. Massey took to the increase of taxation in an interview last week was put on a sounder footing than was given to it by his general statement on that occa&ion. He does not object to the special purposes of the , Dreadnought purchase ruid compulsory training, which will absorb about 76fj?er cent, of Mie eeti'

mated yield of the new taxes, but he contends that leasonably economical administration would have allowed the Government to provide for this- additional expenditure without imposing any new burdens upon the taxpayer. We entirely agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the retrenchment proposals of the Government, which are estimated to effect a saving of £250,000 a year, are far from a complete answer to the charge of extravagance. Their fill) effect will not be felt during the present year, but even when it has been realised, the present haphazard methods afford no guarantee either that some of the economies proposed will not prove extravagances in the long run, or that other economies could not have been effected without any loss of efficiency. On the last point the progress of departmental expenditure to which Mr. Massey referred tells a remarkable and very disquieting story. The average expenditure of the Seddon Government during its last three years was less than £4,000,000 ; the average expenditure of the Ward Government during its first three years has been more than £5,000,000. Even if the retrenchment of the Public Service effects the utmost that is expected of it, it will only reduce the enormous increase by 25 per cent. What is really needed is a review of the whole system of administration by some independent tribunal of business experts, and a reorganisation of the services in accordance with its recommendations. Neither Mr. Fowlds nor Mr. Millar was at least happy last' night in tho defence cf abuses of which, as private members, they would have proved must effective critics. The land question was another poser for both of them. Mr. Millar deemed discretion the better part of valour, and left the question as severely alone as he did during the Rangitikei by-election. Mr. Fowlds, on the other hand, did his best to put a bold face on the matter, .but his laboured defence of the weakness and inconsistencies of the Government could not conceal the sense of humiliation which oppressed him. The very interesting turn that was afterwards given to the debate by Mr. T. E. Taylor's thorough-going amendment in favour of the leasehold is a matter with which the limits of the present article will not allow us to deal.